Galakordi Urtis Krat

an absolutely extraordinary film. a story indeed. great review, you hit all the right points. well done.

In these films, the risk is always the same: lines that are born in a strongly characterized context (in terms of language, in terms of humor) and that are translated and Italianized (in dubbing, in the language, and therefore in the perception and meaning of the same). I would have to be completely Anglophone to appreciate 100% of products of this kind. Given how often they are distributed (meaning: adapted) to foreign national markets, in my opinion, they lose a lot. That’s why I can’t appreciate English humor. Even though it’s not my fault.

I listened to the tracks on his MySpace. I like, beyond the musical aspect, the fact that he has his feet firmly on the ground. And that’s not something everyone can do.

hahahah, "matropolis"... sounds a lot like a matriarchal city. sorry

I fully agree with supersoul's comment. At the time, I really liked the atmosphere of the Batman featuring Catwoman and the Penguin; there was a beautifully twisted vibe that provided some great moments in the scenes set in the Gotham metropolis. I honestly admit that I'm not a fan of superhero comics (or comics in general), as the dialogues feel too childish to me, nor do I really know enough about them. However, from a strictly aesthetic and cinematic point of view, that Batman I mentioned earlier and Nolan's are, all in all, quite decent products. [I won’t vote because the genre is too specific, but ideally, I would give it a 3.5 out of 5... at least there aren't the colors and the horrible photography of Schumacher's Batmans.]

and in fact

... a man without ideas would not be able to create out of thin air SYMBOLS, supported by a conceptual root so strong, so human, so psychic that they become ARCHETYPES and subsequently elements of a proper and autonomous LANGUAGE. to say that such a man has no ideas means to affirm a sacred bullshit. thank you eletto1987 ;-) and I renew my 5 for this movie.

A friend of mine completely rejects David Lynch, saying she finds no interest in cinema that you have to watch "with the manual." Everyone can think what they want in this world, and they can also say the most outrageous nonsense and inaccuracies. But she would have said some nonsense and inaccuracies. The idea that Lynch is mocking everyone is one of the most popular. Films, but also music, and this as a principle, should have some kind of anti-theft system... a mechanism that automatically excludes the most backward slices of the audience and those with the coarsest sensitivity. It’s easy to watch Mulholland Drive or Inland Empire or Lost Highway and say "this story makes no sense" or "this guy is just fooling us all," to speak loudly in the cinema, to get up, and to leave in a huff. There were people in front of me while I was watching Inland Empire that I would have liked to hit with a shovel. Lynch is not for everyone. Beautiful things are not for everyone. True beauty, true art, unyielding, uncomforting, are not things for everyone. And rightly so. As long as there are people who subscribe to the nonsense written by a Foster Kane or the speeches of a Poletti, it will mean that David Lynch is on the right path and that cinema is not yet completely dead.

no, clearly Lynch is not omnipotent. Wild at Heart, for example, does not measure up to some of his other works, in my opinion and taste obviously, but to say that behind the visual exaggerations there lies a lack of ideas means misinterpreting the object of analysis and approaching it in a hasty manner.

no, clearly Lynch is not omnipotent. Wild at Heart, for example, does not measure up to some of his other works, in my opinion and taste obviously, but to say that behind the visual exaggerations there lies a lack of ideas means misinterpreting the object of analysis and approaching it in a hasty manner.